Steve Dalby has a big problem. As the chief regulatory officer at Australian internet service provider iiNet Ltd. (ASX:IIN), he tells the Sydney Morning Herald that his company is struggling sustain the $3M USD a month service the government is demanding to spy on its citizens.

I. Orwellian Plan Could Cost Telecoms $3M USD a Month

Other service providers like Telstra Comp., Ltd. (ASX:TLS) are flat-out refusing to comply saying the government order to spy on everything from a user's Google Inc. (GOOG) searches to storing the numbers involved in their encrypted payments via eBay, Inc.'s (EBAY) PayPal is not only a gross invasion of privacy -- it's also likely illegal.

Security director Darren Kane told the SMH, "We cannot capture or provide any metadata or any content around something like Gmail because it is Google-owned, it is offshore and it is over the top of our network. The real value of what we might have in a data retention scheme would be greatly diminished as soon as the organised criminals and potential terrorists knew that we were not capturing that data."

But that's precisely what the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) wants access to full access to all user metadata, including usernames and passwords. It also wants to intercept and store copies of citizens' emails, social media chats, and text messages.

ASIC officials claim that handing ubiquitous spy powers to government regulators will help the ASIC fight "white collar crime". But collecting the information may actually create criminal opportunity, as Telstra points out. And industry officials suggest that the plan could cost up to $400M USD to put in place, plus potentially tens, if not hundreds of millions a month to maintain a full watch over users' data.

Mr. Romney expressed a viewpoint narrowly in line with the President's plugging warrantless wiretaps in an interview, stating, "If it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we are gonna go, because we are going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a sec, we have civil liberties to worry about', but don't forget... the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."

Much like Australia, the U.S. is currently considering heaping a plan to sever "frequent" pirates' internet on top of the growing framework of non-transparent, warrantless surveillance methods.

In both nations the big pushback is coming from interne service providers and internet software service providers like Google.

quote: I'd like to point out that people with worse guns who are worse shots have tied us up for years and cost billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When you have a "leader" who does not have the word "victory" in his vernacular and follows a 1970's failed foreign policy, what do you expect? He has lost more soldiers in Afghanistan than did Bush. Whenever you tell your opponent we're leaving on X date you have FAILED BY CHOICE. War has never been a "police action" that he and his side purport it to be. In war you win it decisively, clean up the loose weapons, AND THEN send in the police force. Bush didn't and Obama certainly isn't.

So,

quote: Granted they're fighting a losing war, but they did play a major part in bleeding Russia dry in the 80's and the last decade will probably go down as one of the major causes of the failure of the US if we dont' get our act together.

The only reason we are doing very poorly right now is the incredible omission of will by our leader and not fighting a fast, to the point war with pre-defined and well-defined goals. This ideology stems from the misguided, progressive belief that a large combat force has no place in this day of civilized people.

There is no silver in war, let alone trophies for everyone. Go BIG or stay at home. War is ugly, vile, and an unfortunate reality that if not tackled in a hard and, sadly, brutal manner, don't bother.

By not following a war plan of victory you end up with governments reacting with the wrong approach shown in the story above in a world that is unnecessarily less safe than it was before.

If Obama had let the war on terror gone on auto-pilot, it would cost so much that USA would never be able to pay their debts. Training a police force and building the country would remove the foundation of taliban; give people a better life and they do not turn to religion and fanatism.

quote: When you have a "leader" who does not have the word "victory" in his vernacular and follows a 1970's failed foreign policy, what do you expect?

It was the 1970s cold war approach to conflict that has lead to the current mess. You cant defeat an insurgency with bigger tanks, more bombs, and faster planes.

quote: The only reason we are doing very poorly right now is the incredible omission of will by our leader and not fighting a fast, to the point war with pre-defined and well-defined goals.

In a way, youre right. The objectives of both wars seemed to be 'stop terr'rists'. Invading a sovereign nation, on a pretext of dodgy intelligence, that turned out to have nothing to do with 9/11 in defiance of the UNSC probably isnt the best way to go about it.

quote: This ideology stems from the misguided, progressive belief that a large combat force has no place in this day of civilized people.

Clearly a large combat force isnt the answer - or else some measure of success would have been achieved by now?

quote: There is no silver in war, let alone trophies for everyone. Go BIG or stay at home. War is ugly, vile, and an unfortunate reality that if not tackled in a hard and, sadly, brutal manner, don't bother.

Keep that up in the Middle East and the problems will continue - new generations of freedom fighters will take up arms against the invaders. This, in turn, will only flare up anti-Western sentiment. This is exactly the wrong approach to take.

quote: It was the 1970s cold war approach to conflict that has lead to the current mess. You cant defeat an insurgency with bigger tanks, more bombs, and faster planes.

You missed the point about the left's approach in 1970, they only wanted to appease the enemy at that time. Just talk to them nicely and they'll see that you a just like they are. That is what Obama's apology tour was all about. Didn't work then, will not work in my lifetime. For any such discussion to work you have to have all parties willing to work, usually that persuasion is overwhelming force or valid threat of force. You can never negotiate from a position of weakness.

quote: In a way, youre right. The objectives of both wars seemed to be 'stop terr'rists'. Invading a sovereign nation, on a pretext of dodgy intelligence, that turned out to have nothing to do with 9/11 in defiance of the UNSC probably isnt the best way to go about it.

The UN is totally useless, much like the progressives last effort the League of Nations. The problem with intelligence is that its never perfect. As far as I've heard the major European players ALL had similar, corroborating information. Saddam was a very good liar. Also, ALL of the UN declarations on Iraq were about to run out and could not be extended given the make up of the UNSC. Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, killing his own people, and so on. What real, that is, not with your head in the sand solution that does not rely on 20-20 hind site did you propose that nearly all of the Senate and the House fail to consider when they passed the authorization to attack.

quote: Clearly a large combat force isnt the answer - or else some measure of success would have been achieved by now?

Oh yes a large force IS the answer. The massive surge turned around the battles in Iraq. If we had gone in with double the forces, rather than the light forces pushed by those trying to shrink the military so they can spend said monies on their own pet projects we wouldn't have let the legislative branch become arm chair generals.

quote: Keep that up in the Middle East and the problems will continue - new generations of freedom fighters will take up arms against the invaders. This, in turn, will only flare up anti-Western sentiment. This is exactly the wrong approach to take.

The primary reason the problems continue is we have a leader who thinks giving in and leading from behind will win the hearts and minds of those who hate us for reasons other than what he thinks. I don't care if they like us. Respect goes further than does "liking us." Which, by the way is also at an all time low under this president.

More soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama's 3.5 years than the previous 6.5 years under Bush. Kicking out the bad leader in Egypt worked how well? The problem with rapid, radical, uncontrolled change, particularly while leading from behind, is that you are unable to shape the change. That doesn't mean we run said country, only that slow, consistent pressure prevents the radicals from taking over as they did in Egypt.

So, learn the history that isn't taught in school, they tend to leave a lot out.